Ginder Singh Vs State of Punjab

Pe t itioner has filed this petitio n under Articles 226/227 of Constitution of India read with Section 3(1)(d) of The Punjab Good Conduct Prisoners (Tem p orary Release) Act, 1962 (he r einafter to be referred as ‘the Act, 1962’) for issuance of directions to respo n dents for grant of parole for a period of 08 w eeks to the petitioner and for quashing the impugned order dated 05.02.2024 (Annexure P-1) passed by res p ondent No. 2, vide which, the case of the petit i oner for grant of parole has bee n declined. 2. Le a rned counsel for the petitioner inter alia contends that the impugned orde r dated 05.02.2024 (Annexur e P-1) has been passed in a mechanical ma n ner on the ground that on earl i er occasion, the petitioner has been declared a s proclaimed offender. He fur t her contends that there is no legislative man d ate to reject the case of a convict for temporary release on the apprehension t h at in case, the petitioner is released, he can indulge in

¶15

MANISHA 2025.03.27 18:17 I attest to the accuracy and authenticiy of this order/judgment

¶16

CRWP-459-2025

¶17

2

¶18

smuggling of in t oxicating substances. He furthermore contends that there is no legal mandate t o reject the case of the petitione r for temporary release only on the aforementioned ground. He submits that t h e petitioner was convicted for rigorous impris o nment for 10 years under Sec t ion 15 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic S u bstances Act, 1985 and he ha s undergone actual custody of more than 08 y ears. He further relies upon the judgments passed by the Division Benc h of this Court in CRWP-5395-2023 decided on 06.05.2024 titled as Kulwinder Singh @ Taina Vs. State of Punjab and Others and Jassa Singh @ Jassa Vs. State of Punjab and Others, 2016(5) RCR (Criminal) 522 and submits th a t Division Bench of this Co u rt has already considered the statutory provi s ions contained in the Act of 1962 and has concluded that involvement of the convict in other cases cann o t be a sole ground for denying him the conces s ion of temporary release. Learn e d counsel further submits that case of the petit i oner satisfies the ground contai n ed in Section 03 of the Act of 1962. Relevant paragraph of judgment Kulwinder Singh @ Taina (supra) is reproduced her e inbelow:

¶19

“ 10 . Objectives of parole are twofold i.e. rehabilitation of offender and pro t ection of society. The main purpo s e of parole is that prisoner can mai n tain continuity together with his fa m ily, friends and community and at the same time to save prisoner from ha r mful effects of continuous prisoner life. Parole enables a prisoner to devel o p a feeling of self confidence that the r e is a life beyond prison. It helps pri s oner to develop a sense of hope and acti v e interest in his life with a view to r ehabilitate the prisoner. Competent aut h ority can always impose sufficient and necessary conditions while gra n ting parole. Gainful reference at thi s stage can be made to the judgment of C oordinate Bench in "Bansi Lal v e rsus State of Punjab & Others", 201 6 (4) R.C.R. (Criminal) 1017, where i t was observed as under :-

¶20

"11. ..... During incarceration of a prisoner in jail after his conviction he is entitled for temporary rel e ase on parole which though is a

¶21

MANISHA 2025.03.27 18:17 I attest to the accuracy and authenticiy of this order/judgment

¶22

CRWP-459-2025

¶23

3

¶24

concession and not a right. How e ver, in order to reform a prisoner a periodic temporary release on pa r ole for short duration is necessary. This is a welfare measure in the i n terest of a prisoner .....

¶25

xx xx xx xx

¶26

15. The term 'Security of the Stat e ' out of the expressions of 'law and order', and 'public order' is consi d ered more grave. It may arise from within or outside the State. It is generally understood as an act of aggression from outside, or m ilitant and terrorists operations engineered by foreign agencies. I t can also be effected by passing of classified information like docu m ents, secrets, maps etc. to foreign countries or through undesirable f oreign links. An act which poses a threat to the State is to be co n sidered as a threat affecting the security of the State. 'Public or d er', however, is synonymous with public safety. It is something mo r e than mere law and order. Every breach of peace does not lead t o public disorder. Maintenance of public order is intended to prev e nt grave public disorder, which is not the same as maintenance of law and order. The latter is comparatively of a lesser gravity and in fact of local significance. An act which does not affect the public at large or has no impact on it, is not to be taken as an act affectin g maintenance of public order. The distinction between law and order and public order is one of degree and extent of reach of the act in question on society. In the case of breach of law and order it affe c ts individuals directly involved as distinct from the public at large. This would raise a law and order problem only. The true test is th e potentiality of the act in question. One act may affect some individuals and local persons while another though of a similar nature may impact the public at large. An act which disturbs the even tempo of life of the public at large affects the maintenance of public order. Th e se aspects are to be considered by the concerned District Magistrat e s and competent authorities under Act while deciding to recommend or not to recommend the temporary release of a prisoner on parole a nd/or passing orders for temporary release by the competent author i ties under the Act. The exercise is not to be lightly conducted and the concerned District Magistrate and/or the competent authorities a re to apply their mind on the basis of inputs received by them for re c ommending or passing an order as the case may be for temporary release of prisoners on parole."

¶27

MANISHA 2025.03.27 18:17 I attest to the accuracy and authenticiy of this order/judgment

¶28

CRWP-459-2025 4

¶29

11. A Division Bench of this Court in t h e case of Manga @ Manga Singh Ver s us State of Punjab and others, 2020(4) R.C.R. (Criminal) 133 spe c ifically held that merely because p e titioner was involved in four other cas e s cannot be a valid ground by itself t o deny release on parole.

¶30

12. A s per impugned order dated 10.04. 2 023 based on the report of Senior Sup e rintendent of Police, Ferozepur, it i s observed that in case petitioner is released on temporary parole, he can in d ulge in smuggling of narcotics and he m ay also abscond during parole. O n this basis, prayer for parole was rejected by District Magistrate, Ferozep u r by passing impugned order dated 10. 0 4.2023 (Annexure P-2). Such mere a pprehension is not a valid ground for r ejection of application filed by peti t ioner seeking parole. Affidavit filed by Deputy Superintendent of Police, Zira and impugned order dated 10. 0 4.2023 Annexure P-2 do not come to the aid of the State justifying denial of p arole to petitioner. Consideration o f the question whether release of peti t ioner on parole is likely to endange r security of State or maintenance of pub l ic order has clearly not been carried out by the competent authority. Co g ent material to indicate the same rather than mere registration of var i ous cases has to be available.”

¶31

Pe r contra, learned State couns e l opposes the prayer of the petitioner for g r ant of parole, by referring to th e status report and submits that petitioner is inv o lved in 17 more cases. As suc h , he is not entitled to the relief claimed. Howe v er, he could not controvert the fact that out of those 17 cases, the petitioner h as been acquitted in 08 case s and in other cases, he has undergone his s e ntence, except in one case. 4. Co n sidering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and the judgments r e ndered by Division Benches of this Court in Kulwinder Singh @ Taina(supra) and Jassa Singh @ Jassa (supra) the impugned order dated 05.02.2024 (An n exure P-1) passed by District M agistrate, Moga is hereby set aside, being unsustainable.

¶32

Fu r ther, the District Magistrate, M oga is directed to re-consider the application filed by the petitioner seeking grant of parole in the light of

¶33

MANISHA 2025.03.27 18:17 I attest to the accuracy and authenticiy of this order/judgment

¶34

CRWP-459-2025 5

¶35

aforesaid provi s ions of the Act, 1962, within a period of one week from the date of receipt o f certified copy of this order. 6. Ne e dless to say that in case, th e authorities deviate from the statutory provis i ons and do not comply with the order passed by this Court, the petitioner woul d be at liberty to invoke the pro v isions contained under Article 215 of Constit u tion of India seeking contem p t of the order passed by this Court.

¶36

A c opy of this order be given to l earned State counsel for strict

¶37

compliance.

¶38

March 26, manisha	2025	(H ARPREET SINGH BRAR) JUDGE
	(i)	Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
	(ii)	Whether reportable Yes/No

¶39

MANISHA 2025.03.27 18:17 I attest to the accuracy and authenticiy of this order/judgment

Ginder Singh v. State of Punjab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ginder Singh v. State of Punjab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sandeep Kumar Vs State of Haryana and Another

Jatin Jindal Vs State of Haryana

Buta Singh and Ors. Vs State of Punjab

Roshan Lal Vs State of Haryana

Jasbir Singh Vs State of Punjab

Nirmal Singh Vs State of Punjab